This is where all download will be listed, utilizing the Page Add plugin.
File Name | S22-Policy-NCFCA-60-NEG-GunStackingCORRECTED.docx |
File Size | 61.98 KB |
Date added | March 31, 2022 |
Category | Policy (NCFCA) |
Author | Vance Trefethen |
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reform its policies regarding convicted prisoners under federal jurisdiction
Plan: FSA reforms on gun stacking charges and mandatory minimums are not retroactive, so some prisoners who might have been released sooner are overlooked. Plan will apply retroactive sentencing reduction for mandatory minimums and gun stacking charges. Each prisoner that is affected by their plan can be resentenced by the judge to the appropriate sentences under the First Step Act.
“Stacking” – is a term that refers to how a criminal is charged with multiple crimes at the time of their arrest and trial. It’s often referred to as the “924(c)” rule. A rough example: Guy with no criminal history goes into a bank, brandishes a gun, fires it into the ceiling, steals $10,000 and runs outside. Outside, someone confronts him, so he again fires it into the air, scares them off, and runs away. He never physically harms anyone. Later he gets caught. The federal prosecutor could treat what happened inside the bank and what happened outside the bank as two separate incidents and “stack” them under 924c for the purpose of charging him as a “repeat firearms offender.” He would be charged with bank robbery, plus a first offense firearm violation (firing inside the bank), plus a second offense firearm violation (firing outside the bank). Now as a “repeat firearms offender” (the second “separate” offense outside the bank), he would be sentenced much more severely than as a first time offender who fired two shots as part of his one and only first offense. He would be sentenced to a much longer prison term than if he had fired two shots inside the bank and no shots outside. FSA was supposed to reduce or correct this “stacking” disparity.
Some sources say Congress did allow retroactive sentencing reductions for prisoners convicted before FSA was enacted. Others say they didn’t. The problem is an ambiguity in the law that different courts interpret differently.